Talk:Boeing 247

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] removed reference

I removed the reference to P-26_Peashooter page under "Related Content, Designation Sequence, 248 and 266". The referenced page "P-26_Peashooter" is a binary file. Never saw this before in wp. This binary file also comes up if searching for "P-26_Peashooter". I downloaded the file and scanned for viruses and it came up clean. NatureBoy 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably a temporary problem. Seems to be working fine now. Ingoolemo talk 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] angle of climb in Boeing ad

I'm not a pilot, but the angle of climb in Image:Boeing 247 ad.jpg looks rather extreme. If it is, maybe the caption could say something about it. (artist's rendition?) --Jtir (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am, and the aircraft would be in a complete stall at this point. Remember that this was a "cigarette" or "bubble-gum" card format so that the artist used the typical "artists' licence" in creating a dramatic pose and incidentally using the entire space of the card format. FWIW I think readers can see that this is a piece of art not intended to be strictly accurate but rather a stylistic interpretation. BTW, it also illustrates the other side of the NASM example which is another reason I added the artwork. Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the additional background. I agree that it is a dramatic illustration. Contemporary art gives character to an article. However, I have copyedited the caption to state the obvious. --Jtir (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, I have tweaked the tenor a bit to allow the reader to discover the inaccuracies. Again, I am not "wedded" to the wording – mainly wordsmithing involved here. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
A sentence beginning "Note ..." tells the reader what to do. I removed cigarette card because the source says nothing about the illustration, and the article on cigarette cards doesn't help identify it. Cigarette card will need to be linked if it is used in the caption. Dramatic and fanciful are interpretations of the image. --Jtir (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted, there was a series of "collector cards" issued by publishers and companies right up to modern times that depicted aviation types. The use of the term "cigarette card" was to alert the reader that this was one of those examples although not specifically packed with a cigarette or cigar purchase. Since this is a peripheral issue, I made some adjustment to the wording. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] copyright status of Image:Boeing247U.PNG

I cannot verify the copyright status of Image:Boeing247U.PNG from the given sources, and have tagged it for deletion at Commons.

Discussion is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Boeing247U.PNG.

I have found a similar image, but in a different file format, here:

The caption reads:

[92] Figure 4.10 - Early version of Boeing 247 10-passenger twin-engine transport; 1933. [Peter C. Boisseau]

--Jtir (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply replace one image for another, as the NASA photograph will not have a copyright problem. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC).